Firebird is generally pretty boring, but as far as higher tier GR go and pushing the leaderboard it actually requires a great amount of skill and tactical gameplay. On that front I really enjoy it. I think Blizzard really put itself in a box with the mechanic though, because the damage output is so consistent that you basically just cast fire on everything and let things burn until death. It's really hard to offer styles of play that can be as competitively consistent.
My hope is that whoever is responsible for balancing the Wizard class will really take a look at Delseres, Vyrs, and Tal Rashas to really hone in and offer four uniquely different yet balanced levels of gameplay. Find a way to make it so that no set really outshines the other and start with Firebird as a base. Once you hone in on that, then maybe branch further out with newer sets and balancing some legendaries in the mix.
The Tal's suggestion in the post above mine seems like a no brainer. All elemental damage should equal your highest. That alone would go a huge way to improve the set. Also, no meteor casts on breakable objects.
- Registered User
Member for 8 years, 9 months, and 26 days
Last active Sat, May, 21 2016 22:10:56
- 1 Follower
- 383 Total Posts
- 55 Thanks
Aug 19, 2014They should have made it where rares are the stat sticks and legendaries are the items that change builds and strictly stuck with this. Rares can roll significantly higher stats than legendaries, but legendaries change your build. That way each slot becomes a more meaningful choice. Do I want more stats here or do I want less stats and a gimmick? The ultimate idea is that if you just put legendaries on every slot, you suffer in stats, so you have to coordinate between rares and legendaries. Right now everyone just puts legendaries/sets everywhere and auto-salvages rares and it's kind of uninspiring.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
All stat stick legendaries need to be reworked to have some build changing idea to it -- ALL OF THEM -- DON'T EVEN LEAVE ONE. In my opinion, EVERY SKILL needs at least ONE skill changing legendary attached to it; and the idea needs to be impactful, synergistic, and build altering if at all possible. We need more sets. Every class should have 5+, **MINIMUM**. Focus on making each one like Jade, Marauders, Akkhans. Those are beautiful sets because they synergize so well with other legendaries. KEEP DOING MORE OF THAT.
The gem changes are really disheartening to hear... I too was looking forward to them; now not so much.
Jun 27, 2014Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
How do you not see rolling off a socket, just to add a socket as counter-intuitive?Quote from Venaliter
It's completely logical. You'd reroll the socket slot if you had a Gift on hand, or keep it if you didn't. If you think it's counter intuitive, Diable may not be the game for you.Quote from itirnitii
I feel like it is somewhat counter-intuitive and I have some concerns. To anyone who doesn't know what this item is set to do if unchanged it will add a socket to a weapon basically for free. You get a fifth primary at no cost to the weapons other stats.
My first concern stems from the fact that having an innate socket on a weapon will go from being the most favorable primary stat it can roll to the absolute least favorable.
Yes. You can choose to just not use a gift on it at all, but it's never going to be end-game quality without five primary stats. Four primary stat items will become the new insta-soul.
Socket is hands down the worst innate affix roll you can get if you plan on that weapon being end game quality. It doesn't exclude the item from being end game quality if the other three primary stats roll fantastically, but it still is the worst you can get as it innately offers nothing, since you can just roll it away to add a fifth primary to replace it as a new socket instantly.
Jun 27, 2014Right now getting an innate socket on a weapon is on par with the most desirable and useful stat you can get on a weapon. Without a socket your weapon is junk. By getting an innate socket you can enchant any other stat to whatever you want, making the likelihood of improving your weapon to grand status very favorable. A socket roll does not have a range of power (for example: damage range, damage %, or CDR % fall on a spectrum of rolls where they can roll a high value or a low value); you either have a socket or you don't, and when you do it is best in slot and that affix roll is uncontested at max potential instantaneously.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
While this new item, Ramalandi's Gift, is a great step in the right direction. I feel like it is somewhat counter-intuitive and I have some concerns. To anyone who doesn't know what this item is set to do if unchanged it will add a socket to a weapon basically for free. You get a fifth primary at no cost to the weapons other stats.
My first concern stems from the fact that having an innate socket on a weapon will go from being the most favorable primary stat it can roll to the absolute least favorable. You will never want an innate socket on your weapon as you will just want to reroll it away and use Ramalandi's Gift to replace it for free, meaning the socket roll itself has absolutely no intrinsic value and you will wish it could have been anything but a socket so that you got more value out of that affix. You will never gain any practical use out of getting an innate socket on a weapon drop and the innate socket roll has basically been relegated to the status of completely useless.
This will only cease being a concern if weapons with innate sockets stop rolling altogether after Ramalandi's Gift is implemented (if left unchanged), which hopefully will happen. But, this will be a complete let down for anyone who already has an amazing innate socket weapon already and can't take advantage of the fifth primary they could have instead.
Please take note of the fact I am not voicing concerns of the idea of adding a socket to a weapon, I think it is a great idea, and it is better than what we already have. But if five primary stat weapons are going to be the new 'it' thing. It should at least be made so that weapons that already have an innate socket (and enchanted another stat as a natural result) can take advantage of this idea and not be left obsolete.
I'm not quite sure what a solid solution would be, but would be interested in hearing people's thoughts and/or concerns.
Jun 18, 2014Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
Your attacking a point Shaggy is not making. To me, Shaggy is aware that the best stats to have on an amulet will just switch to the new criteria and his argument is not an attempt to try to refute this.Quote from Draco_Draco
The point is Shaggy, and I'll keep repeating that untill you understand:
As long as the legendary gem is stronger than the alternative rolls on an item, there is no sacrifice included in the choise. You keep repeating "You'll have to choose", and "you will have to sacrifice". THERE IS NO CHOISE. THERE IS NO SACRIFICE.
Just like there is no choise between getting elemental damage or not on your bracers, or sockets or not in your chest, there will be no choise in jewellery.
If legendary gems become as powerfull as actual legendary affixes and enables stronger builds, then sockets in jewellery becomes mandatory. Where's the fun in that? Say that a ring provides you with a 10% dmg boost due to crit chance on it. Let's say a legendary gem provides a 15% boost. There is no choise, no risk, and no reward associated with picking the legendary gem. It's always going to either be a stronger choise (no sacrifice, boring) or a weaker choise (nothing changes, boring). It doesn't matter which item you pick. I just personally think it's a wasted chance to look at some of the pieces that's usually seen as more "Boring" because they don't bring any major stats to the picture (boots, shoulders, legs, chest).
Gonna try and TL;DR this aswell to try and make sure I get the point across:
1: If legendary gem is all-powerfull, it does not matter where you put it. It will always be the choise over anything.
2: If 1 is true, why put it on items that already have decent affixes to pick from instead of boring ones. To give us less crit? Why? Legendary gem is stronger anyway. If crit is 10% and legendary gem is 15%, we still become stronger. Doesn't matter we lost dps one place if we gained it the other. End result is the same.
As for your whole "they'd just replace normal gems" - so what? nothing more boring than normal gems, really. Pick up a ton, spend 9M on one, never ever lose it, and just chug all mainstat in your gear. How is chugging legendary gems in there any less fun? I really don't get it. As if it's any better to go "ILL JUST ROLL SOCKETS ON ALL MY JEWELLERY AND THROW GEMS IN THERE HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR FUN".
Personally, I'd much, MUCH rather that they tied legendary gems to the paragon system. Allow one legendary gem to be slotted on your character anywhere you'd like per 100 paragon levels (an actual bonus rather than those derpy portraits). Progressively making the players characters stronger and unlocking builds ("well, if you want to play Derpmode V3 Turrethunter, you'll need atleast 300 paragon and these 3 legendary gems for their bonuses").
What his argument is about is the fact that sockets on different equipment have different value. 3 sockets on a chest armor is one primary stat, while on a ring or amulet it is only 1 socket for 1 primary stat. Also, amulets primary stats are more valuable than chest armors because chest armor cannot roll elemental damage, 100% CD, and 10% CC. This is what his argument is about, and it is strictly arguing against putting these legendary gems into anything but jewelry.
The "sacrifice" and "choice" he is talking about is not that you have to sacrifice a great stat on an amulet to instead put this gem in (which will become the new BiS for everyone). The sacrifice is that you can't just stick it into a piece of chest armor instead and only lose 1/3rd of a primary stat, which isn't even that detrimental on a piece of chest armor as opposed to an amulet to begin with.
Apr 30, 2014When you're patching such a large intricate game such as the games Blizzard deals with on such a mass scale I'd imagine you'd want to patch a large number of things as infrequently as possible. All patching one minor item at a time does is slow down the entire process. Look at the big picture. You change even the most tiny thing and it can impact a lot of different systems. It's better for them to just play test and release 20 different changes all at once and release them in one big lump sum, then it is to slowly release mini patches that just fix one or two items. Every time the game client changes there is a pandora's box of problems that could go wrong, so doing that as infrequently as possible is the way to go. In the end it takes a lot less effort that can go into other things that we want changed. It sucks to have to wait, but it makes sense to me in the end.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
I have 7040 achievement point (96%) and I am itching badly for them to patch the broken ones, but I understand why it's taking so long. They might already have a fix for them ready to go, but I can see why they might want to release it in 2.1 (or whatever it will be called) with a whole slew of other changes as well.
Nov 23, 2013Right now it's VOTA for essence, Festering > FoM > Crypt (if exists) for experience. There is nothing else.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
At least bounties and rifts are random and offer different sceneries and monsters to fight. Bounties are everywhere in all acts so you can choose which ones you want to do. Not really sure I am understanding what the downside is.
Monster Density could be a valid complaint, but it has nothing to do specifically with Rifts and Bounties.
Nov 19, 2013itirnitii posted a message on Why Can't Unique Armor Have Unique Visual Effects?I still want to echo that I think transmog is great to be able to change a legendary that you find ugly into just a regular piece of tiered armor. There are over 10 choices now for each character class as far as those options go. But changing a legendary into another legendary or a non-legendary into a legendary has a duplicity that I personally cannot get behind. Seeing other people running around wearing legendary skins for legendaries they aren't actually utilizing kind of kills the lore aspect for me.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
Not to mention that if each legendary is being given a unique ability, it seems overly deceptive to see another player wearing legendaries when they don't actually have those unique abilities that are supposed to be specifically attributed to said legendaries. It kind of has a disjointed feeling, that I'm sure I will adapt to but won't ever truly feel quite right about. It almost feels like these two new features (transmog and new legendary passives) have a conflict of interest as far as perception goes that I think Blizzard usually tries to avoid but is definitely being overlooked here.
An example that would apply, if transmog existed now, might be seeing someone using a FireWalkers skin over another set of boots, but not seeing any fire trail being left behind. It just has a blatant mismatch feeling to it that I don't particularly care for. It ruins some of the mystique that these legendaries are supposed to carry in their own individuality. If you thought the Firewalkers were ugly and just wanted to cover them up with the skin of a tier 8 boot skin, no big deal there.
On the other side of the spectrum, I want to clarify that I'd be fine with Firewalker boots that were covered by a tier 8 boot skin, to still display the fire trail passive effect, because at least you are actually wearing Firewalkers. It's a little deceptive, but at least the effect matches the actual item equipped to the owner. So if I see the trail I know they are Firewalkers underneath the transmog skin. It's deceptive, but it's a deception to a lesser degree that has a clear logical flow that leads to a clear logical outcome solely based upon immediate visual inspection.
I would have to argue there is a delicate and subtle finesse to this situation that the devs are overlooking.
Nov 14, 2013itirnitii posted a message on Transmog Removes Unique Item's Visual Uniqueness/ValueMy feelings for transmog are completely mixed. I like it, but I also hate it.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
I am kind of against the idea of items taking on the skins of legendaries, but not necessarily against making a legendary look like a regular tiered piece of armor.
Nov 12, 2013itirnitii posted a message on Travis Day on "Legendaries/set items being soulbound"The "use self-control" line of thought is tired. What boundaries Blizzard chooses to enforce in the scope of the multiplayer experience matters to many. It may not matter to certain individuals but it matters to a lot of people in the community what stance Blizzard takes. It matters to many what experience they are going to have in relation to their friends and in relation to the entire community. You can self-impose your own standards, and even if you have the self-control to enforce them on yourself, it can have a psychological toll on your experience if you know all your friends and the community at large are playing a completely different game on a completely different level. For many people that subconscious nagging ruins the experience. It may not be that way for some, but it is that way for many.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
If you take this line of thought further you could just remove all boundaries. Blizzard could just put a FAQ up at the beginning saying that it is a sandbox game and you can impose whatever limits you want to optimize your fun. Add an NPC that creates infinite gold, create an NPC that dupes items for you, increase legendary drop rate to whatever you want it to be. I mean what you choose to do doesn't effect anyone else right? It's all about your fun. If those NPCs ruin your fun show some self-control man!
But there in lies the problem. What many consider fun is based upon what is happening in the game at large within the community. To dismiss that just because your personal fun isn't being infringed upon is just as selfish in a sense.
You can keep pushing this "if trading is not fun, then don't trade" rhetoric all day long, but if I am not trading and my friend I play alongside is and he is killing monsters three times faster then me, that affects me. My personal fun has been compromised because I can't ignore that. Him killing faster effects my experience gain and my drops since monsters die quicker to the actions he is partaking in outside my gameplay. The boundaries imposed upon him being inequitable to mine outside of our game together has infringed upon my ability to share a common experience with him in the context of the game at large. For many, that is the fun of the game, the ability to share a common experience with the community imposed by the boundaries of the game itself on everyone mutually.
Many people care about the structure of the game as it is defined and enforced by Blizzard and want to play a game where everyone in the community is held to the same standard of play. For them, therein lies their personal fun. It enforces a sense of camaraderie that we are all playing the same game with the same limitations. What those limitations are defined at matters immensely.
I am not using this argument to make a case for whether trading should or shouldn't be allowed. If you want to be able to trade and want to make a case for that in the context of the game, fine. I am all for that. But, please, talk about it in the context of finding loot and feeling a sense of reward in doing so. How do these choices affect everyone and their ability to share a common experience? But don't use that "self-control" argument as if it had any relevance. Boundaries set by Blizzard matters. What people around you are doing in a multiplayer environment matters. It may not matter to you, but if it matters to even just a minority it is still relevant and not dismissible.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Jul 11, 2014Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
I can think of several words for that process, including:Quote from Ashy_Larry
i wouldn't consider rolling off a socket and replacing it with another socket to be illogical... silly, maybe, but not illogical.
.... I could go on. But removing a socket so that you can add a socket is one of the stupidest series of actions one could take - it literally doesn't make a goddamned bit of sense at all. I don't know why you're defending it as anything other than stupid. What sense does it make to remove a socket.... so that you can add a socket? To me it makes none at all. At the very least, with the introduction of RG, socket rolls should be disabled on weapons so that we're not removing sockets just to go back and re-add them.
The socket property is completely inferior in every single case because RG is always superior. So, at the very lest, fix that problem.
Jul 11, 2014Everything dropping with a guaranteed socket is definitely a better solution than the current implementation of RG. The issue here is that its use is counter-intuitive, regardless of whether or not you can see that. I don't understand how you perceive this as complaining. If the goal is 5 affixes and a socket there's several good ways to achieve that:Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
1. All weapons drop with 5 affixes, user can roll one into a socket
2. All weapons drop with 4 non-socket affixes, RG is used to add socket
3. All weapons drop with 4 affixes, RG can be used to add a 5th, user can roll any of the 5 into a socket if there isn't one
ALL of these are better ways to handle it than:
4. Weapons drop with 4 affixes, RG can be used to add a socket IF there isn't one
This isn't a complaint and I have no idea how you are construing it as that. The issue is that the use of RG in its current form is counter-intuitive. If the goal is to get a socket on your weapon, rolling the existing socket off your weapon should not be a part of that process. It's just illogical.
As for you salvaging items with awesome stats and no sockets, Reaper of Souls features a Mystic NPC that can be used to enchant your gear. She is very useful for just such a situation, and can transform your "almost awesome" socket-less item into an awesome socketed one. You can find more information here: http://www.diablowiki.net/Mystic
Nov 16, 2013The removal of the AH and BoA Legendaries are probably the two things I'm most excited for in RoS. Despite what others are saying I think that trading has always been a disaster in all three Diablo games, and I'm thrilled that Blizzard is committing their full attention to making the self-found game as good as it can be. Finding loot is simply more fun than trading for it, and the only way to make certain that trading doesn't take control of the game again(as in vanilla D3) is to kill it entirely.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
Nov 15, 2013Posted in: Diablo III General DiscussionQuote from maka
How nice of you to conveniently disregard the fact that he's talking about PoE's Maps mechanic (which is basically what the OP's idea is, not a lot of differences there), and start talking about the "big picture" (because it suits you).
He's right, the OP's idea is PoE maps, down to a 'T'. I hate it when you go all "crusader mode".
OK OK OK... but it's pretty damned douchey at this point for someone to even bring that up when people have been saying "we want a map system cause it was cool in TL2 and PoE."
You can't beg for a feature then whine that Blizzard "copied" it. That's not how it works. So it really doesn't matter if it was copied or not, this is Blizzard trying to give us what we want, right? This is one of the things I absolutely LOATHE about this community: it's so fucking two-faced about things.
"Hey, Blizzard, give us PoE/TL2 maps please!"
"OK, guys, we think we have a system similar to that which works in the D3 world..."
"You lazy fucks just copying from other games!"
It's a case study in "damned if you do, damned if you don't" frankly.
I'll wait to see how Rifts turn out before passing judgement on your improvements.
Nov 14, 2013Posted in: Diablo III General DiscussionQuote from k0ksii
This isnt new....ever heard about the game "path of exile"?
Yeah, we have. It's the game that isn't new either, because it was built on the foundations and ideas of many other games, including Diablo. Still a nice idea presented by OP. But thanks for constructive feedback.
Nov 10, 2013Mini641 posted a message on Travis Day on "Legendaries/set items being soulbound"Have you guys played the console version? If so you know with hardly any effort you get every damn legendary and set item you need. Now that we know rare legend and set items will be BiS in RoS i highly doubt they will be hard to find.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
Honestly i'll give it to blizzard for trying something new. I mean before D3 released if someone told you we would see a Diablo game with No skill trees, pvp or trading what would you have said?
Nov 10, 2013RasAlgethi24 posted a message on Travis Day on "Legendaries/set items being soulbound"As someone thats fully taken advantage of the AH (flipping), I'm on board with this. The people with good gear will be the ones that played the most, not the ones that frequent d2j.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
Nov 4, 2013Bagstone posted a message on My evolution with RPGs and future advice for BlizzardMy opinion on this is two-fold:Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
I think the OP is correct to say that D3's story just can't keep up with that of D1 (and I'd say even that of D2), even if you leave the age/experience effect aside. I know quite a few people who haven't played D1 and D2, so Diablo 3 was their first game in this particular universe, and none of them was particularly thrilled by the story. I don't share all the criticism about D3 being too bright, but I think that the atmosphere isn't as dark anymore. But this has less to do with graphics and more with the music and story telling. The story telling of D2 was superb; the music was okay, but it didn't not convey this epic tension. Diablo 1 was both perfect in terms of music (always very tense) and story telling (dark and mysterious). What killed the cat in Diablo 3 are the occasional jokes and comical references, such as NPCs behaving silly. Much like in a tense atmosphere where someone makes a joke, the NPCs just "kill" the tense atmosphere by joking around. Prime example: the ever annoying Covertous Shen. Sure, you had some jokes in Diablo 1 as well (the "cow" is one that comes to my mind), but deep down within the dungeon you wouldn't laugh, and the story wouldn't make you chuckle even once. Ever.
That being said, the ending of Diablo 1 with the mind-blowing plot twist is something you just can't repeat. Even if you do, everyone will just expect it. It's like making a movie "The Sixth Sense 2"... starting from the first minute, you kinda would know what to look for. It's like surprising someone who already knows; it's the reason why we can't tickle ourselves ("Oh, I didn't see that coming" said no one ever). And with that, here's my other take on this subject:
I'm actually coming from a similar background, OP: I played pen&paper as well (though not D&D, we had different P&P games over here). Heroquest is a Warhammer spin-off; I tried Warhammer once but wasn't too keen on these tabletop games (they were also way too expensive, imho). In terms of computer games, I never felt that Diablo was the glorious digital manifestation of a P&P game. In fact, at least the way I played P&P games, it was far less about killing stuff and more about solving riddles and creating an adventures atmosphere similar to what many people picture as Lord of the Rings-like. It kind of depends on the moderator; the least interesting sessions were those were the moderator turned everything into a huge battle with loads of enemies.
Therefore, I favor real RPGs (as opposed to ARPGs) as the true digital counterparts of P&P games. Baldur's Gate was already mentioned; some other of my favorite RPGs are Planescape Torment (quite combat-heavy but the atmosphere is really unique), Maniac Mansion (almost no combat here), Fallout 1+2, the Zelda series, Secret of Mana and Secret of Evermore. Note that many of those were released after Diablo 1, therefore it's clearly not nostalgia talking here.
It very much sounds like Diablo was your first real RPG on a PC that involved some sort of story-telling. It had some unique features, but there's a reason why everyone agrees that it created a new genre: it was action-focused and added the "A" to "RPG".
Last but not least, I wanna close with a quote from whorebeast that sums up pretty much the sentiment about every single one of your favorite games:
Most of the magic, especially in unveiling a story or seeing your RPG progress, comes from not knowing the end. Once you know the end, much of the magic is gone. There's no way to "un-do" that, and while Diablo 3 could definitely have better in terms of story-telling, there was almost no chance in hell it would have recreated emotions like ~15 years ago when you played Diablo for the first time.I wish nothing more than to be able to unlearn everything and start over.
Oct 16, 2013Posted in: Diablo III General DiscussionQuote from Jamoose
When you die in an area like Stonefort in act 3, after you've cleared half the map, you have to walk for so long... It's just stupid. This is like the biggest punishment for me when i play and many times i just quit the run or move on to the next area. I think this is flawed design... I mean, walking for a few minutes? the most boring shit ever...
That has more to do with sloppy level/checkpoint design than anything. In D2, if you ended up having to walk a ways back to your corpse, that was your own fault for not dropping a town portal. Since TPs don't work the same way, there are many areas that really need more frequent checkpoints, Stonefort is a great example.
I wouldn't be against adding some more penalties to death, but the above is the kind of thing they really need to fix first.
Oct 4, 2013Okay well, here's your first problem...Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
Quote from Indimix
The most disrespectful thing anyone can do to a fellow poster is not read the things they say. Calling someone's posts "walls of text" is a fancy way of saying "I don't have the attention span to listen to what anything you have to say, but please, take my word seriously." I've had debates with other folks on this forum, who wrote insanely long posts, and at least before I got completely exhausted, I respected them enough to read their posts and respond to as much as I could.
In regard to the rest of your request...
Quote from Indimix
Search through my threads and prove me wrong. The threads history doesn't lie.
GLADLY!!! Here are the last batch of topics you've started, according to your profile.
Here's a link in which you simply post a meme, comparing D3 to Pokemon, implying Pokemon "legendaries" are more legendary than D3 legendaries.
Memes, in case you're unaware, are an unintelligent way of contributing to a conversation. Not saying what the meme said was necessarily wrong, but letting other people do the discussing, while simply posting a meme, is not contributing. It's throwing fuel on a fire you already know is raging. Next...
Here's a link from September 13, where you ask about followers:
Could be seen as a conversation starter, though to be honest, you didn't really ask anything besides "anything new happening." Besides which, you trail the vague question with "quite a dull addon." Making your question pretty much a loaded platform on which to flame. Next...
Here's a link where you post yet another meme where you imply the reaction by Blizzard to all the players' suggestions. I'm sure you were spot on.
Finally, a post in which you say you pick the game up again for another 30 minutes (seems like an awfully masochistic pattern), and were met by the "match summary" screen.
For a moment, I couldn't figure out what you meant, then I realized you were talking about PvP. Well, there's something original and thought provoking...and also completely out of nowhere. I'd keep going, but I'm not clear on how to search for topics farther back than that via your Dfans profile. Though, I think the point is proven.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.